Macrolide antibiotics (including azithromycin) for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-limiting genetic condition, affecting over 90,000 people worldwide. CF affects several organs in the body, but airway damage has the most profound impact on quality of life (QoL) and survival. Causes of lower airway infection in people with CF are, most notably, Staphylococcus aureus in the early course of the disease and Pseudomonas aeruginosa at a later stage. Macrolide antibiotics, e.g. azithromycin and clarithromycin, are usually taken orally, have a broad spectrum of action against gram-positive (e.g. S aureus) and some gram-negative bacteria (e.g. Haemophilus influenzae), and may have a modifying role in diseases involving airway infection and inflammation such as CF. They are well-tolerated and relatively inexpensive, but widespread use has resulted in the emergence of resistant bacteria. This is an updated review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the potential effects of macrolide antibiotics on clinical status in terms of benefit and harm in people with CF. If benefit was demonstrated, we aimed to assess the optimal type, dose and duration of macrolide therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals, and abstract books of conference proceedings. We last searched the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register on 2 November 2022. We last searched the trial registries WHO ICTRP and clinicaltrials.gov on 9 November 2022. We contacted investigators known to work in the field, previous authors and pharmaceutical companies manufacturing macrolide antibiotics for unpublished or follow-up data, where possible. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of macrolide antibiotics in adults and children with CF. We compared them to: placebo; another class of antibiotic; another macrolide antibiotic; or the same macrolide antibiotic at a different dose or type of administration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies (1467 participants) lasting 28 days to 36 months. All the studies assessed azithromycin: 11 compared oral azithromycin to placebo (1167 participants); one compared a high dose to a low dose (47 participants); one compared nebulised to oral azithromycin (45 participants); and one looked at weekly versus daily dose (208 participants). Oral azithromycin versus placebo There is a slight improvement in forced expiratory volume (FEV1 % predicted) in one second in the azithromycin group at up to six months compared to placebo (mean difference (MD) 3.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.74 to 6.19; high-certainty evidence), although there is probably no difference at three months, (MD 2.70%, 95% CI -0.12 to 5.52), or 12 months (MD -0.13, 95% CI -4.96 to 4.70). Participants in the azithromycin group are probably at a decreased risk of pulmonary exacerbation with a longer time to exacerbation (hazard ratio (HR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.75; moderate-certainty evidence). Mild side effects were common, but there was no difference between groups (moderate-certainty evidence). There is no difference in hospital admissions at six months (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.04; high-certainty evidence), or in new acquisition of P aeruginosa at 12 months (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.55; moderate-certainty evidence). High-dose versus low-dose azithromycin We are uncertain whether there is any difference in FEV1 % predicted at six months between the two groups (no data available) or in the rate of exacerbations per child per month (MD -0.05 (95% CI -0.20 to 0.10)); very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes. Only children were included in the study and the study did not report on any of our other clinically important outcomes. Nebulised azithromycin versus oral azithromycin We were unable to include any of the data into our analyses and have reported findings directly from the paper; we graded all evidence as being of very low certainty. The authors reported that there was a greater mean change in FEV1 % predicted at one month in the nebulised azithromycin group (P < 0.001). We are uncertain whether there was a change in P aeruginosa count. Weekly azithromycin versus daily azithromycin There is probably a lower mean change in FEV1 % predicted at six months in the weekly group compared to the daily group (MD -0.70, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.45) and probably also a longer period of time until first exacerbation in the weekly group (MD 17.30 days, 95% CI 4.32 days to 30.28 days). Gastrointestinal side effects are probably more common in the weekly group and there is likely no difference in admissions to hospital or QoL. We graded all evidence as moderate certainty. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Azithromycin therapy is associated with a small but consistent improvement in respiratory function, a decreased risk of exacerbation and longer time to exacerbation at six months; but evidence for treatment efficacy beyond six months remains limited. Azithromycin appears to have a good safety profile (although a weekly dose was associated with more gastrointestinal side effects, which makes it less acceptable for long-term therapy), with a relatively minimal treatment burden for people with CF, and it is inexpensive. A wider concern may be the emergence of macrolide resistance reported in the most recent study which, combined with the lack of long-term data, means we do not feel that the current evidence is strong enough to support azithromycin therapy for all people with CF. Future research should report over longer time frames using validated tools and consistent reporting, to allow for easier synthesis of data. In particular, future trials should report important adverse events such as hearing impairment or liver disease. More data on the effects of azithromycin given in different ways and reporting on our primary outcomes would benefit decision-making on whether and how to give macrolide antibiotics. Finally, it is important to assess azithromycin therapy for people with CF who are established on the relatively new cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator therapies which correct the underlying molecular defect associated with CF (none of the trials included in the review are relevant to this population).

A refresh of the top 10 research priorities in cystic fibrosis.

In 2018 we published the James Lind Alliance (JLA) top 10 priorities for clinical research in cystic fibrosis (CF), chosen jointly by the patient and clinical communities. These priorities have led to new research funding. To establish whether priorities have changed with novel modulator therapies, we undertook an online international update through a series of surveys and a workshop. Patients and clinicians (n=1417) chose the refreshed top 10 from 971 new research questions (suggested by patients and clinicians) and 15 questions from 2018. We are working with the international community to promote research based on these refreshed top 10 priorities.

Digital technology for early identification of exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-limiting genetic condition affecting various organ systems including the gastrointestinal tract, endocrine system and especially the respiratory tract. Pulmonary exacerbations in CF result in increased symptoms, an acceleration in the rate of lung decline and an increased need for treatment. Early detection of infections or clinical worsening provides an opportunity for proactive treatment that may affect clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether digital technology can effectively predict pulmonary exacerbations to allow earlier intervention and improved health outcomes without increasing the burden of treatment in people with CF. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews on 13 October 2022. We searched Embase and the clinical trial registries on 3 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs in people with CF looking at whether digital technology can effectively predict pulmonary exacerbations to allow earlier intervention and improved health outcomes without increasing the burden of treatment.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. pulmonary exacerbations and 2. quality of life (QoL). Our secondary outcomes were 3. lung function, 4. hospitalisations, 5. intravenous (IV) antibiotics, 6. microbiology, 7. cost-effectiveness and 8. ADVERSE EVENTS: We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies (415 participants) in people with CF aged 15 to 41 years over a 12-month period. One was a multicentre RCT, whilst two were single-centre RCTs.  The three studies were mostly similar in their risk of bias, having low or unclear risk of selection bias but a high risk of detection bias, due to the unblinded design of these studies. The studies used a variety of digital technologies to monitor symptoms such as a digital symptom diary either with or without home spirometry monitoring. As the trials only included adults and older children, we are not certain that the results would apply to younger children. One of our primary outcomes was to assess time to detection of pulmonary exacerbation and number of pulmonary exacerbations identified between the intervention and routine care groups. We were largely unable to pool results in a meta-analysis due to the variety of methodologies and ways of reporting data. Two studies noted a shorter time to detection of exacerbations in the intervention group and one of these also reported that the intervention group had a shorter time to first exacerbation (hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.93), whilst a further study reported a shorter time to detection of exacerbations in the intervention group requiring oral or IV antibiotics compared to the control group (median: 70 (interquartile range (IQR) 123) days with intervention versus 141 (IQR 140) days with control; P = 0.02). However, all three studies were concordant in finding no probable effect on spirometry in the intervention groups when compared with their routine care groups over a 12-month period.  We found that there is probably no difference between groups with regard to QoL scores across most domains except for Weight and Body Image, which favoured the usual care group. There is also probably no difference in the number of days of additional IV antibiotics needed or newly detected pathogens. No studies reported serious adverse events directly linked to the intervention and one study reported their smartphone application was generally well received. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary exacerbations are universally accepted to be detrimental to progression of CF-related lung disease, therefore, it is intuitive that early detection and intervention would help to improve outcomes. Digital technology provides an opportunity to detect physiological and symptomatic changes to identify exacerbations early.  Our review found that digital technologies based on recording physiological change (spirometry) and symptoms probably allow earlier identification of exacerbations as a group. However, this may not reduce the number of exacerbations warranting IV antibiotics and there is probably no effect on lung function. This may be partly due to inconsistent definitions of pulmonary exacerbations and discrepancy in the management strategies for pulmonary exacerbations. Overall, the intervention may make little or no difference to QoL scores.  The adherence to and uptake of digital technologies, especially those which include physiological measurements, are not well sustained and the costs of these need to be balanced against the clinical efficacy.

Nebulised hypertonic saline for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Hypertonic saline enhances mucociliary clearance and may lessen the destructive inflammatory process in the airways. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To investigate efficacy and tolerability of nebulised hypertonic saline treatment in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) compared to placebo or other treatments that enhance mucociliary clearance. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched ongoing trials databases. Most recent search: 25 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials assessing hypertonic saline compared to placebo or other mucolytic therapy, for any duration or dose regimen in people with CF (any age or disease severity). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed all identified trials and data, and assessed trial quality. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. For cross-over trials we stipulated a one-week washout period. We planned to use results from a paired analysis in the review, but this was only possible in one trial. For other cross-over trials, we chose to treat the trials as if they were parallel. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 trials (1318 participants, aged one month to 56 years); we excluded 29 trials, two trials are ongoing and six are awaiting classification. We judged 15 of the 24 included trials to have a high risk of bias due to participants' ability to discern the taste of the solutions. Hypertonic saline 3% to 7% versus placebo (stable disease) We are uncertain whether the regular use of nebulised hypertonic saline in stable lung disease leads to an improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted at four weeks, (mean difference (MD) 3.30%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 5.89; 4 trials, 246 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In preschool children we found no difference in lung clearance index (LCI) at four weeks, but a small improvement after 48 weeks of treatment with hypertonic saline compared to isotonic saline (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.19; 2 trials, 192 participants). We are also uncertain whether hypertonic saline made a difference to mucociliary clearance, pulmonary exacerbations or adverse events compared to placebo. Hypertonic saline versus control (acute exacerbation) Two trials compared hypertonic saline to control, but only one provided data. There may be little or no difference in lung function measured by FEV1 % predicted after hypertonic saline compared to isotonic saline (MD 5.10%, 95% CI -14.67 to 24.87; 1 trial, 130 participants). Neither trial reported any deaths or measures of sputum clearance. There were no serious adverse events. Hypertonic saline versus rhDNase Three trials compared a similar dose of hypertonic saline to recombinant deoxyribonuclease (rhDNase); two trials (61 participants) provided data for inclusion in the review. We are uncertain whether there was an effect of hypertonic saline on FEV1 % predicted after three weeks (MD 1.60%, 95% CI -7.96 to 11.16; 1 trial, 14 participants; very low-certainty evidence). At three months, rhDNase may lead to a greater increase in FEV1 % predicted than hypertonic saline (5 mL twice daily) at 12 weeks in participants with moderate to severe lung disease (MD 8.00%, 95% CI 2.00 to 14.00; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether adverse events differed between the two treatments. No deaths were reported. Hypertonic saline versus amiloride One trial (12 participants) compared hypertonic saline to amiloride but did not report on most of our outcomes. The trial found that there was no difference between treatments in measures of sputum clearance (very low-certainty evidence). Hypertonic saline compared with sodium-2-mercaptoethane sulphonate (Mistabron®) One trial (29 participants) compared hypertonic saline to sodium-2-mercaptoethane sulphonate. The trial did not measure our primary outcomes. There was no difference between treatments in any measures of sputum clearance, courses of antibiotics or adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). Hypertonic saline versus mannitol One trial (12 participants) compared hypertonic saline to mannitol, but did not report lung function at relevant time points for this review; there were no differences in sputum clearance, but mannitol was reported to be more 'irritating' (very low-certainty evidence). Hypertonic saline versus xylitol Two trials compared hypertonic saline to xylitol, but we are uncertain whether there is any difference in FEV1 % predicted or median time to exacerbation between groups (very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were reported in the review. Hypertonic saline 7% versus hypertonic saline 3% We are uncertain whether there was an improvement in FEV1 % predicted after treatment with 7% hypertonic saline compared with 3% (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain if regular use of nebulised hypertonic saline by adults and children over the age of 12 years with CF results in an improvement in lung function after four weeks (three trials; very low-certainty evidence); there was no difference seen at 48 weeks (one trial; low-certainty evidence). Hypertonic saline improved LCI modestly in children under the age of six years. Evidence from one small cross-over trial in children indicates that rhDNase may lead to better lung function than hypertonic saline at three months; qualifying this, we highlight that while the study did demonstrate that the improvement in FEV1 was greater with daily rhDNase, there were no differences seen in any of the secondary outcomes. Hypertonic saline does appear to be an effective adjunct to physiotherapy during acute exacerbations of lung disease in adults. However, for the outcomes assessed, the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low at best, according to the GRADE criteria. The role of hypertonic saline in conjunction with cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator therapy now needs to be considered, and future research needs to focus on this aspect.

Digital technology for monitoring adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Improved understanding and treatment of cystic fibrosis (CF) has led to longer life expectancy, which is accompanied by an increasingly complex regimen of treatments. Suboptimal adherence to the treatment plan, in the context of respiratory disease, has been found to be associated with poorer health outcomes. With digital technology being more accessible, it can be used to monitor adherence to inhaled therapies via chipped nebulisers, mobile phone apps and web-based platforms. This technology can allow monitoring of adherence as well as clinical outcomes, and allow feedback to both the person with CF and their healthcare team. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of using digital technology to monitor adherence to inhaled therapies and health status in adults and children with CF. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books.  Date of last search: 28 October 2021. We also searched Embase and three clinical trial registries and checked references of included studies. Date of last search: 9 November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) looking at the effects of a digital technology for monitoring adherence of children and adults with CF to inhaled therapies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the search results for studies eligible for inclusion in the review and extracted their data. We used Risk of Bias 2 for assessing study quality. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies in our review, with 628 participants aged five to 41 years. There was one study each for two different comparisons.  Nebuliser target inhalation mode versus standard inhalation mode The included parallel study was carried out over 10 weeks after a run-in period of four to six weeks. The study compared the effects of a digitally enhanced inhalation mode (target inhalation mode) for nebulised antibiotics compared to standard mode in children attending a regional CF clinic in the United Kingdom. The study's primary outcome was the time taken to complete the inhaled treatment, but investigators also reported on adherence to therapy. The results showed that there may be an improvement in adherence with the target inhalation mode when this intervention is used (mean difference (MD) 24.0%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.95 to 45.05; low-certainty evidence). The target inhalation mode may make little or no difference to forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted (MD 1.00 % predicted, 95% CI -9.37 to 11.37; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report on treatment burden, quality of life (QoL) or pulmonary exacerbations. eNebuliser with digital support versus eNebuliser without support One large multicentre RCT monitored adherence via data-tracking nebulisers. The intervention group also receiving access to an online web-based platform, CFHealthHub, which offered tailored, flexible support from the study interventionist as well as access to their adherence data, educational and problem-solving information throughout the 12-month trial period. We graded all evidence as moderate certainty. Compared to usual care, the digital intervention probably improves adherence to inhaled therapy (MD 18%, 95% CI 12.90 to 23.10); probably leads to slightly reduced treatment burden (MD 5.1, 95% CI 1.79 to 8.41); and may lead to slightly improved FEV1 % predicted (MD 3.70, 95% CI -0.23 to 7.63). There is probably little or no difference in the incidence of pulmonary exacerbations or QoL between the two groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Digital monitoring plus tailored support via an online platform probably improves adherence to inhaled therapies and reduces treatment burden (but without a corresponding change in QoL) in the medium term (low- and moderate-certainty evidence). In a shorter time frame, technological enhancement of inhaling antibiotics may improve adherence to treatment (low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no effect on lung function with either intervention, and online monitoring probably makes no difference to pulmonary exacerbations.  Future research should assess the effect of digital technology on adherence in both children and adults. Consideration of adherence to the total treatment regimen is also important, as an improvement in adherence to inhaled therapies could come at the cost of adherence to other parts of the treatment regimen.

Enzyme replacement therapy for late-onset Pompe disease.

BACKGROUND: Pompe disease is caused by a deficiency of the enzyme acid alpha-glucosidase (GAA). People with infantile-onset disease have either a complete or a near-complete enzyme deficiency; people with late-onset Pompe disease (LOPD) retain some residual enzyme activity. GAA deficiency is treated with an intravenous infusion of recombinant human acid alglucosidase alfa, an enzyme replacement therapy (ERT). Alglucosidase alfa and avalglucosidase alfa are approved treatments, but cipaglucosidase alfa with miglustat is not yet approved. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of enzyme replacement therapies in people with late-onset Pompe disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched MEDLINE OvidSP, clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of last search: 21 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ERT in people with LOPD of any age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence (using GRADE). We resolved disagreements through discussion and by consulting a third author. MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials (358 randomised participants) lasting from 12 to 78 weeks. A single trial reported on each comparison listed below. None of the included trials assessed two of our secondary outcomes: need for respiratory support and use of a walking aid or wheelchair. Certainty of evidence was most commonly downgraded for selective reporting bias. Alglucosidase alfa versus placebo (90 participants) After 78 weeks, alglucosidase alfa probably improves the six-minute walk test (6MWT) distance compared to placebo (mean difference (MD) 30.95 metres, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.98 to 53.92; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably improves respiratory function, measured as the change in per cent (%) predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) (MD 3.55, 95% CI 1.46 to 5.64; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between the groups in occurrence of infusion reactions (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.61; low-certainty evidence), quality of life physical component score (MD -1.36 points, 95% CI -5.59 to 2.87; low-certainty evidence), or adverse events (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.39; low-certainty evidence). Alglucosidase alfa plus clenbuterol versus alglucosidase alfa plus placebo (13 participants) The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of alglucosidase alfa plus clenbuterol compared to alglucosidase alfa plus placebo on: change in 6MWT distance after 52 weeks (MD 34.55 metres, 95% CI-10.11 to 79.21; very low-certainty evidence) and change in % predicted FVC (MD -13.51%, 95% CI -32.44 to 5.41; very low-certainty evidence). This study did not measure infusion reactions, quality of life, and adverse events. Alglucosidase alfa plus albuterol versus alglucosidase alfa plus placebo (13 participants) The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of alglucosidase alfa plus albuterol compared to alglucosidase alfa plus placebo on: change in 6MWT distance after 52 weeks (MD 30.00 metres, 95% CI 0.55 to 59.45; very low-certainty evidence), change in % predicted FVC (MD -4.30%, 95% CI -14.87 to 6.27; very low-certainty evidence), and risk of adverse events (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; very low-certainty evidence). This study did not measure infusion reactions and quality of life. VAL-1221 versus alglucosidase alfa (12 participants) Insufficient information was available about this trial to generate effect estimates measured at one year or later. Compared to alglucosidase alfa, VAL-1221 may increase or reduce infusion-associated reactions at three months, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.18 to 42.80). This study did not measure quality of life and adverse events. Cipaglucosidase alfa plus miglustat versus alglucosidase alfa plus placebo (125 participants) Compared to alglucosidase alfa plus placebo, cipaglucosidase alfa plus miglustat may make little or no difference to: 6MWT distance at 52 weeks (MD 13.60 metres, 95% CI -2.26 to 29.46); infusion reactions (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.80); quality of life scores for physical function (MD 1.70, 95% CI -2.13 to 5.53) and fatigue (MD -0.30, 95% CI -2.76 to 2.16); and adverse effects potentially related to treatment (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.40) (all low-certainty evidence). Cipaglucosidase alfa plus miglustat probably improves % predicted FVC compared to alglucosidase alfa plus placebo (MD 3.10%, 95% CI 1.04 to 5.16; moderate-certainty evidence); however, it may make little or no change in % predicted sniff nasal inspiratory pressure (MD -0.06%, 95% CI -8.91 to 7.71; low-certainty evidence). Avalglucosidase alfa versus alglucosidase alfa (100 participants) After 49 weeks, avalglucosidase alfa probably improves 6MWT compared to alglucosidase alfa (MD 30.02 metres, 95% CI 1.84 to 58.20; moderate-certainty evidence). Avalglucosidase alfa probably makes little or no difference to % predicted FVC compared to alglucosidase alfa (MD 2.43%, 95% CI -0.08 to 4.94; moderate-certainty evidence). Avalglucosidase alfa may make little or no difference to infusion reactions (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.45), quality of life (MD 0.77, 95% CI -2.09 to 3.63), or treatment-related adverse events (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.40), all low-certainty evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: One trial compared the effect of ERT to placebo in LOPD, showing that alglucosidase alfa probably improves 6MWT and respiratory function (both moderate-certainty evidence). Avalglucosidase alfa probably improves 6MWT compared with alglucosidase alfa (moderate-certainty evidence). Cipaglucosidase plus miglustat probably improves FVC compared to alglucosidase alfa plus placebo (moderate-certainty evidence). Other trials studied the adjunct effect of clenbuterol and albuterol along with alglucosidase alfa, with little to no evidence of benefit. No significant rise in adverse events was noted with all ERTs. The impact of ERT on some outcomes remains unclear, and longer RCTs are needed to generate relevant information due to the progressive nature of LOPD. Alternative resources, such as post-marketing registries, could capture some of this information.

Antibiotic strategies for eradicating Pseudomonas aeruginosa in people with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory tract infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa occur in most people with cystic fibrosis (CF). Established chronic P aeruginosa infection is virtually impossible to eradicate and is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Early infection may be easier to eradicate. This is an updated review. OBJECTIVES: Does giving antibiotics for P aeruginosa infection in people with CF at the time of new isolation improve clinical outcomes (e.g. mortality, quality of life and morbidity), eradicate P aeruginosa infection, and delay the onset of chronic infection, but without adverse effects, compared to usual treatment or an alternative antibiotic regimen? We also assessed cost-effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and conference proceedings. Latest search: 24 March 2022. We searched ongoing trials registries. Latest search: 6 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with CF, in whom P aeruginosa had recently been isolated from respiratory secretions. We compared combinations of inhaled, oral or intravenous (IV) antibiotics with placebo, usual treatment or other antibiotic combinations. We excluded non-randomised trials and cross-over trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials (1449 participants) lasting between 28 days and 27 months; some had few participants and most had relatively short follow-up periods. Antibiotics in this review are: oral - ciprofloxacin and azithromycin; inhaled - tobramycin nebuliser solution for inhalation (TNS), aztreonam lysine (AZLI) and colistin; IV - ceftazidime and tobramycin. There was generally a low risk of bias from missing data. In most trials it was difficult to blind participants and clinicians to treatment. Two trials were supported by the manufacturers of the antibiotic used. TNS versus placebo TNS may improve eradication; fewer participants were still positive for P aeruginosa at one month (odds ratio (OR) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.18; 3 trials, 89 participants; low-certainty evidence) and two months (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.65; 2 trials, 38 participants). We are uncertain whether the odds of a positive culture decrease at 12 months (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.67; 1 trial, 12 participants). TNS (28 days) versus TNS (56 days) One trial (88 participants) comparing 28 days to 56 days TNS treatment found duration of treatment may make little or no difference in time to next isolation (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.76; low-certainty evidence). Cycled TNS versus culture-based TNS One trial (304 children, one to 12 years old) compared cycled TNS to culture-based therapy and also ciprofloxacin to placebo. We found moderate-certainty evidence of an effect favouring cycled TNS therapy (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.82), although the trial publication reported age-adjusted OR and no difference between groups. Ciprofloxacin versus placebo added to cycled and culture-based TNS therapy One trial (296 participants) examined the effect of adding ciprofloxacin versus placebo to cycled and culture-based TNS therapy. There is probably no difference between ciprofloxacin and placebo in eradicating P aeruginosa (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.44; moderate-certainty evidence). Ciprofloxacin and colistin versus TNS We are uncertain whether there is any difference between groups in eradication of P aeruginosa at up to six months (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.23; 1 trial, 58 participants) or up to 24 months (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.42; 1 trial, 47 participants); there was a low rate of short-term eradication in both groups. Ciprofloxacin plus colistin versus ciprofloxacin plus TNS One trial (223 participants) found there may be no difference in positive respiratory cultures at 16 months between ciprofloxacin with colistin versus TNS with ciprofloxacin (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.29; low-certainty evidence). TNS plus azithromycin compared to TNS plus oral placebo Adding azithromycin may make no difference to the number of participants eradicating P aeruginosa after a three-month treatment phase (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.35; 1 trial, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence); there was also no evidence of any difference in the time to recurrence. Ciprofloxacin and colistin versus no treatment A single trial only reported one of our planned outcomes; there were no adverse effects in either group. AZLI for 14 days plus placebo for 14 days compared to AZLI for 28 days We are uncertain whether giving 14 or 28 days of AZLI makes any difference to the proportion of participants having a negative respiratory culture at 28 days (mean difference (MD) -7.50, 95% CI -24.80 to 9.80; 1 trial, 139 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ceftazidime with IV tobramycin compared with ciprofloxacin (both regimens in conjunction with three months colistin) IV ceftazidime with tobramycin compared with ciprofloxacin may make little or no difference to eradication of P aeruginosa at three months, sustained to 15 months, provided that inhaled antibiotics are also used (RR 0.84, 95 % CI 0.65 to 1.09; P = 0.18; 1 trial, 255 participants; high-certainty evidence). The results do not support using IV antibiotics over oral therapy to eradicate P aeruginosa, based on both eradication rate and financial cost. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that nebulised antibiotics, alone or with oral antibiotics, were better than no treatment for early infection with P aeruginosa. Eradication may be sustained in the short term. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether these antibiotic strategies decrease mortality or morbidity, improve quality of life, or are associated with adverse effects compared to placebo or standard treatment. Four trials comparing two active treatments have failed to show differences in rates of eradication of P aeruginosa. One large trial showed that intravenous ceftazidime with tobramycin is not superior to oral ciprofloxacin when inhaled antibiotics are also used. There is still insufficient evidence to state which antibiotic strategy should be used for the eradication of early P aeruginosa infection in CF, but there is now evidence that intravenous therapy is not superior to oral antibiotics.

Exploring the challenges of accessing medication for patients with cystic fibrosis.

Reducing treatment burden in cystic fibrosis (CF) is the top research priority for patients and clinicians. Difficulty accessing medication is one aspect of treatment burden. We investigated this with an online survey available globally for patients with CF and healthcare professionals. Almost three quarters of patients with CF in our survey report difficulty getting repeat prescriptions on time, and most community pharmacists experience interrupted supplies of CF-specific medications. These barriers affect emotional and physical health of people with CF. Two-thirds of people with CF would like to get all their CF medication from one place, their CF centre.

Inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotics for long-term therapy in cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled antibiotics are commonly used to treat persistent airway infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa that contributes to lung damage in people with cystic fibrosis. Current guidelines recommend inhaled tobramycin for individuals with cystic fibrosis and persistent Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection who are aged six years or older. The aim is to reduce bacterial load in the lungs so as to reduce inflammation and deterioration of lung function. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of long-term inhaled antibiotic therapy in people with cystic fibrosis on clinical outcomes (lung function, frequency of exacerbations and nutrition), quality of life and adverse events (including drug-sensitivity reactions and survival). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched ongoing trials registries. Date of last search: 28 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected trials where people with cystic fibrosis received inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotic treatment for at least three months, treatment allocation was randomised or quasi-randomised, and there was a control group (either placebo, no placebo or another inhaled antibiotic). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected trials, judged the risk of bias, extracted data from these trials and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE system. MAIN RESULTS: The searches identified 410 citations to 125 trials; 18 trials (3042 participants aged between five and 45 years) met the inclusion criteria. Limited data were available for meta-analyses due to the variability of trial design and reporting of results. A total of 11 trials (1130 participants) compared an inhaled antibiotic to placebo or usual treatment for a duration between three and 33 months. Five trials (1255 participants) compared different antibiotics, two trials (585 participants) compared different regimens of tobramycin and one trial (90 participants) compared intermittent tobramycin with continuous tobramycin alternating with aztreonam. One trial (18 participants) compared an antibiotic to placebo and also to a different antibiotic and so fell into both groups. The most commonly studied antibiotic was tobramycin which was studied in 12 trials. Inhaled antibiotics compared to placebo We found that inhaled antibiotics may improve lung function measured in a variety of ways (4 trials, 814 participants). Compared to placebo, inhaled antibiotics may also reduce the frequency of exacerbations (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.93; 3 trials, 946 participants; low-certainty evidence). Inhaled antibiotics may lead to fewer days off school or work (quality of life measure) (mean difference (MD) -5.30 days, 95% CI -8.59 to -2.01; 1 trial, 245 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data for us to be able to report an effect on nutritional outcomes and there was no effect on survival. There was no effect on antibiotic resistance seen in the two trials that were included in meta-analyses. We are uncertain of the effect of the intervention on adverse events (very low-certainty evidence), but tinnitus and voice alteration were the only events occurring more often in the inhaled antibiotics group. The overall certainty of evidence was deemed to be low for most outcomes due to risk of bias within the trials and imprecision due to low event rates. Different antibiotics or regimens compared Of the eight trials comparing different inhaled antibiotics or different antibiotic regimens, there was only one trial for each unique comparison. We found no differences between groups for any outcomes except for the following. Aztreonam lysine for inhalation probably improved forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1) % predicted compared to tobramycin (MD -3.40%, 95% CI -6.63 to -0.17; 1 trial, 273 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the method of defining the endpoint was different to the remaining trials and the participants were exposed to tobramycin for a long period making interpretation of the results problematic. We found no differences in any measure of lung function in the remaining comparisons. Trials measured pulmonary exacerbations in different ways and showed no differences between groups except for aztreonam lysine probably leading to fewer people needing treatment with additional antibiotics than with tobramycin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.86; 1 trial, 273 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and there were fewer hospitalisations due to respiratory exacerbations with levofloxacin compared to tobramycin (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.98; 1 trial, 282 participants; high-certainty evidence). Important treatment-related adverse events were not very common across comparisons, but were reported less often in the tobramycin group compared to both aztreonam lysine and colistimethate. We found the certainty of evidence for these comparisons to be directly related to the risk of bias within the individual trials and varied from low to high. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotics probably improves lung function and reduces exacerbation rates, but pooled estimates of the level of benefit were very limited. The best evidence available is for inhaled tobramycin. More evidence from trials measuring similar outcomes in the same way is needed to determine a better measure of benefit. Longer-term trials are needed to look at the effect of inhaled antibiotics on quality of life, survival and nutritional outcomes.

Inhaled antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbations in cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disorder in which abnormal mucus in the lungs is associated with susceptibility to persistent infection. Pulmonary exacerbations are when symptoms of infection become more severe. Antibiotics are an essential part of treatment for exacerbations and inhaled antibiotics may be used alone or in conjunction with oral antibiotics for milder exacerbations or with intravenous antibiotics for more severe infections. Inhaled antibiotics do not cause the same adverse effects as intravenous antibiotics and may prove an alternative in people with poor access to their veins. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To determine if treatment of pulmonary exacerbations with inhaled antibiotics in people with cystic fibrosis improves their quality of life, reduces time off school or work, and improves their long-term lung function. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register. Date of the last search: 7 March 2022. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry and WHO ICTRP for relevant trials. Date of last search: 3 May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in people with cystic fibrosis with a pulmonary exacerbation in whom treatment with inhaled antibiotics was compared to placebo, standard treatment or another inhaled antibiotic for between one and four weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected eligible trials, assessed the risk of bias in each trial and extracted data. They assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE criteria. Authors of the included trials were contacted for more information. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials with 183 participants are included in the review. Two trials (77 participants) compared inhaled antibiotics alone to intravenous antibiotics alone and three trials (106 participants) compared a combination of inhaled and intravenous antibiotics to intravenous antibiotics alone. Trials were heterogenous in design and two were only available in abstract form. Risk of bias was difficult to assess in most trials but, for four out of five trials, we judged there to be a high risk from lack of blinding and an unclear risk with regards to randomisation. Results were not fully reported and only limited data were available for analysis. One trial was a cross-over design and we only included data from the first intervention arm. Inhaled antibiotics alone versus intravenous antibiotics alone Only one trial (18 participants) reported a perceived improvement in lifestyle (quality of life) in both groups (very low-certainty evidence). Neither trial reported on time off work or school. Both trials measured lung function, but there was no difference reported between treatment groups (very low-certainty evidence). With regards to our secondary outcomes, one trial (18 participants) reported no difference in the need for additional antibiotics and the second trial (59 participants) reported on the time to next exacerbation. In neither case was a difference between treatments identified (both very low-certainty evidence). The single trial (18 participants) measuring adverse events and sputum microbiology did not observe any in either treatment group for either outcome (very low-certainty  evidence). Inhaled antibiotics plus intravenous antibiotics versus intravenous antibiotics alone Inhaled antibiotics plus intravenous antibiotics may make little or no difference to quality of life compared to intravenous antibiotics alone. None of the trials reported time off work or school. All three trials measured lung function, but found no difference between groups in forced expiratory volume in one second (two trials; 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or vital capacity (one trial; 62 participants). None of the trials reported on the need for additional antibiotics. Inhaled plus intravenous antibiotics may make little difference to the time to next exacerbation; however, one trial (28 participants) reported on hospital admissions and found no difference between groups. There is likely no difference between groups in adverse events (very low-certainty evidence) and one trial (62 participants) reported no difference in the emergence of antibiotic-resistant organisms (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified only low- or very low-certainty evidence to judge the effectiveness of inhaled antibiotics for the treatment of pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis. The included trials were not sufficiently powered to achieve their goals. Hence, we are unable to demonstrate whether one treatment was superior to the other or not. Further research is needed to establish whether inhaled tobramycin may be used as an alternative to intravenous tobramycin for some pulmonary exacerbations.

Short-acting inhaled bronchodilators for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory disease is the main cause of morbidity and mortality in cystic fibrosis (CF), and many different therapies are used by people with CF in the management of respiratory problems. Bronchodilator therapy is used to relieve symptoms of shortness of breath and to open the airways to allow clearance of mucus. Despite the widespread use of inhaled bronchodilators in CF, there is little objective evidence of their efficacy. A Cochrane Review looking at both short- and long-acting inhaled bronchodilators for CF was withdrawn from the Cochrane Library in 2016. That review has been replaced by two separate Cochrane Reviews: one on long-acting inhaled bronchodilators for CF, and this review on short-acting inhaled bronchodilators for CF. For this review 'inhaled' includes the use of pressurised metered dose inhalers (MDIs), with or without a spacer, dry powder devices and nebulisers. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate short-acting inhaled bronchodilators in children and adults with CF in terms of clinical outcomes and safety. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books on 28 March 2022 and searched trial registries for any new or ongoing trials on 12 April 2022. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that looked at the effect of any short-acting inhaled bronchodilator delivered by any device, at any dose, at any frequency and for any duration compared to either placebo or another short-acting inhaled bronchodilator in people with CF. We screened references as per standard Cochrane methodology. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. Where we were not able to enter data into our analyses we reported results directly from the papers. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials from our systematic search, with 191 participants meeting our inclusion criteria; three of these trials had three treatment arms. Eight trials compared short-acting inhaled beta-2 agonists to placebo and four trials compared short-acting inhaled muscarinic antagonists to placebo. Three trials compared short-acting inhaled beta-2 agonists to short-acting inhaled muscarinic antagonists. All were cross-over trials with only small numbers of participants. We were only able to enter data into the analysis from three trials comparing short-acting inhaled beta-2 agonists to placebo. Short-acting inhaled beta-2 agonists versus placebo All eight trials (six single-dose trials and two longer-term trials) reporting on this comparison reported on forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), either as per cent predicted (% predicted) or L. We were able to combine the data from two trials in a meta-analysis which showed a greater per cent change from baseline in FEV1 L after beta-2 agonists compared to placebo (mean difference (MD) 6.95%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88 to 12.02; 2 trials, 82 participants). Only one of the longer-term trials reported on exacerbations, as measured by hospitalisations and courses of antibiotics. Only the second longer-term trial presented results for participant-reported outcomes. Three trials narratively reported adverse events, and these were all mild. Three single-dose trials and the two longer trials reported on forced vital capacity (FVC), and five trials reported on peak expiratory flow, i.e. forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% (FEF25-75). One trial reported on airway clearance in terms of sputum weight. We judged the certainty of evidence for each of these outcomes to be very low, meaning we are very uncertain about the effect of short-acting inhaled beta-2 agonists on any of the outcomes we assessed. Short-acting inhaled muscarinic antagonists versus placebo All four trials reporting on this comparison looked at the effects of ipratropium bromide, but in different doses and via different delivery methods. One trial reported FEV1 % predicted; three trials measured this in L. Two trials reported adverse events, but these were few and mild. One trial reported FVC and three trials reported FEF25-75. None of the trials reported on quality of life, exacerbations or airway clearance. We judged the certainty of evidence for each of these outcomes to be very low, meaning we are very uncertain about the effect of short-acting inhaled muscarinic antagonists on any of the outcomes we assessed. Short-acting inhaled beta-2 agonists versus short-acting inhaled muscarinic antagonists  None of the three single-dose trials reporting on this comparison provided data we could analyse. The original papers from three trials report that both treatments lead to an improvement in FEV1 L. Only one trial reported on adverse events; but none were experienced by any participant. No trial reported on any of our other outcomes. We judged the certainty of evidence to be very low, meaning we are very uncertain about the effect of short-acting inhaled beta-2 agonists compared to short-acting inhaled muscarinic antagonists on any of the outcomes we assessed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All included trials in this review are small and of a cross-over design. Most trials looked at very short-term effects of inhaled bronchodilators, and therefore did not measure longer-term outcomes. The certainty of evidence across all outcomes was very low, and therefore we have been unable to describe any effects with certainty.

Physical activity and exercise training in cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (including exercise) may form an important part of regular care for people with cystic fibrosis (CF). This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of physical activity interventions on exercise capacity by peak oxygen uptake, lung function by forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and further important patient-relevant outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. The most recent search was on 3 March 2022. We also searched two ongoing trials registers: clinicaltrials.gov, most recently on 4 March 2022; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), most recently on 16 March 2022.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing physical activity interventions of any type and a minimum intervention duration of two weeks with conventional care (no physical activity intervention) in people with CF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected RCTs for inclusion, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 parallel RCTs (875 participants). The number of participants in the studies ranged from nine to 117, with a wide range of disease severity. The studies' age demographics varied: in two studies, all participants were adults; in 13 studies, participants were 18 years and younger; in one study, participants were 15 years and older; in one study, participants were 12 years and older; and seven studies included all age ranges. The active training programme lasted up to and including six months in 14 studies, and longer than six months in the remaining 10 studies. Of the 24 included studies, seven implemented a follow-up period (when supervision was withdrawn, but participants were still allowed to exercise) ranging from one to 12 months. Studies employed differing levels of supervision: in 12 studies, training was supervised; in 11 studies, it was partially supervised; and in one study, training was unsupervised. The quality of the included studies varied widely. This Cochrane Review shows that, in studies with an active training programme lasting over six months in people with CF, physical activity probably has a positive effect on exercise capacity when compared to no physical activity (usual care) (mean difference (MD) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 3.05; 6 RCTs, 348 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The magnitude of improvement in exercise capacity is interpreted as small, although study results were heterogeneous. Physical activity interventions may have no effect on lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted) (MD 2.41, 95% CI ‒0.49 to 5.31; 6 RCTs, 367 participants), HRQoL physical functioning (MD 2.19, 95% CI ‒3.42 to 7.80; 4 RCTs, 247 participants) and HRQoL respiratory domain (MD ‒0.05, 95% CI ‒3.61 to 3.51; 4 RCTs, 251 participants) at six months and longer (low-certainty evidence). One study (117 participants) reported no differences between the physical activity and control groups in the number of participants experiencing a pulmonary exacerbation by six months (incidence rate ratio 1.28, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.94) or in the time to first exacerbation over 12 months (hazard ratio 1.34, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.80) (both high-certainty evidence); and no effects of physical activity on diabetic control (after 1 hour: MD ‒0.04 mmol/L, 95% CI ‒1.11 to 1.03; 67 participants; after 2 hours: MD ‒0.44 mmol/L, 95% CI ‒1.43 to 0.55; 81 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found no difference between groups in the number of adverse events over six months (odds ratio 6.22, 95% CI 0.72 to 53.40; 2 RCTs, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence). For other time points (up to and including six months and during a follow-up period with no active intervention), the effects of physical activity versus control were similar to those reported for the outcomes above. However, only three out of seven studies adding a follow-up period with no active intervention (ranging between one and 12 months) reported on the primary outcomes of changes in exercise capacity and lung function, and one on HRQoL. These data must be interpreted with caution. Altogether, given the heterogeneity of effects across studies, the wide variation in study quality and lack of information on clinically meaningful changes for several outcome measures, we consider the overall certainty of evidence on the effects of physical activity interventions on exercise capacity, lung function and HRQoL to be low to moderate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity interventions for six months and longer likely improve exercise capacity when compared to no training (moderate-certainty evidence). Current evidence shows little or no effect on lung function and HRQoL (low-certainty evidence). Over recent decades, physical activity has gained increasing interest and is already part of multidisciplinary care offered to most people with CF. Adverse effects of physical activity appear rare and there is no reason to actively discourage regular physical activity and exercise. The benefits of including physical activity in an individual's regular care may be influenced by the type and duration of the activity programme as well as individual preferences for and barriers to physical activity. Further high-quality and sufficiently-sized studies are needed to comprehensively assess the benefits of physical activity and exercise in people with CF, particularly in the new era of CF medicine.

Recombinant growth hormone therapy for X-linked hypophosphatemia in children.

BACKGROUND: Conventional treatment of X-linked hypophosphatemia with oral phosphate and calcitriol can heal rickets, but it does not always raise serum phosphate concentrations significantly, nor does it always normalize linear growth. Some clinical trials suggest that combining recombinant human growth hormone therapy with conventional treatment improves growth velocity, phosphate retention, and bone mineral density, but some clinical trials suggest that it appears to aggravate the pre-existent disproportionate stature of such children. This is an updated version of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether recombinant human growth hormone therapy for children with X-linked hypophosphatemia is associated with changes in longitudinal growth, mineral metabolism, endocrine function, renal function, bone mineral density, body proportions, and also with any adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. In addition, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE and the reference lists of identified trials and other reviews. We also undertook some additional handsearching of relevant journals and conference proceedings. Date of the most recent search: 12 January 2021 SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled studies or quasi-randomized controlled studies comparing growth hormone (alone or combined with conventional treatment) with either placebo or conventional treatment alone in children with X-linked hypophosphatemia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for risk of bias and extracted data from eligible studies. GRADE criteria were used to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies (20 participants) in the review. In one cross-over study, results showed that recombinant human growth hormone therapy may improve the height standard deviation (SDS) score (z score), but we are unsure whether the intervention was the reason behind a transient increase in serum phosphate and tubular maximum for phosphate reabsorption. In the second, parallel study, treatment may also have improved the height SDS from baseline in the rhGH group compared to the control group, although no significant difference was seen between groups after three years, MD 0.50 SDS (95 % CI -0.54 to 1.54) (low-certainty evidence). The treatment was possibly well-tolerated during both studies with only transient adverse effects seen in three participants (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether growth hormone improves serum phosphate levels or change in TmP/GFR (very low-certainty evidence). The treatment may make little or no difference to alkaline phosphatase levels (low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We do not have enough high-certainty evidence to recommend the use of recombinant human growth hormone therapy in children with X-linked hypophosphatemia.

Rituximab for eradicating inhibitors in people with acquired haemophilia A.

BACKGROUND: Acquired haemophilia A is a rare bleeding disorder caused by the development of specific autoantibodies against coagulation factor VIII. Standard treatment, usually steroids alone, or in combination with cyclophosphamide, aims to stop acute bleeds by using haemostatic agents to promote clotting. Rituximab may be an alternative approach to the treatment of acquired haemophilia by eradicating FVIII autoantibodies. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of rituximab for treating people with acquired haemophilia A. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's trials registers, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and conference proceedings (January 2021). We also undertook searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and online trial registries (January 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of rituximab for people with acquired haemophilia A, with no restrictions on gender, age or ethnicity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No trials matching the selection criteria were eligible for inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: No trials matching the selection criteria were eligible for inclusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no randomised clinical trials of rituximab for acquired haemophilia A. Thus, we are not able to draw any conclusions or make any recommendations on rituximab for eradicating inhibitors in people with acquired haemophilia A based on the highest quality evidence. Given that undertaking randomised controlled trials in this field is a complex task, we suggest that, while planning such trials, clinicians treating the disease continue to base their choices on alternative, lower-quality sources of evidence. In a future update of this review, we plan to appraise and incorporate eligible randomised controlled trials, as well as other high-quality, non-randomised studies.

Tyrosine supplementation for phenylketonuria.

BACKGROUND: Phenylketonuria is an inherited disease for which the main treatment is the dietary restriction of the amino acid phenylalanine. The diet has to be initiated in the neonatal period to prevent or reduce mental handicap. However, the diet is very restrictive and unpalatable and can be difficult to follow. A deficiency of the amino acid tyrosine has been suggested as a cause of some of the neuropsychological problems exhibited in phenylketonuria. Therefore, this review aims to assess the efficacy of tyrosine supplementation for phenylketonuria. This is an update of previously published versions of this review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of tyrosine supplementation alongside or instead of a phenylalanine-restricted diet for people with phenylketonuria, who commenced on diet at diagnosis and either continued on the diet or relaxed the diet later in life. To assess the evidence that tyrosine supplementation alongside, or instead of a phenylalanine-restricted diet improves intelligence, neuropsychological performance, growth and nutritional status, mortality rate and quality of life. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register which is comprised of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Additional studies were identified from handsearches of the Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease (from inception in 1978 to 1998). The manufacturers of prescribable dietary products used in the treatment of phenylketonuria were also contacted for further references. Date of the most recent search of the Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register: 07 December 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials investigating the use of tyrosine supplementation versus placebo in people with phenylketonuria in addition to, or instead of, a phenylalanine-restricted diet. People treated for maternal phenylketonuria were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the trial eligibility, methodological quality and extracted the data. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials were found, of which three trials reporting the results of a total of 56 participants, were suitable for inclusion in the review. The blood tyrosine concentrations were significantly higher in the participants receiving tyrosine supplements than those in the placebo group, mean difference 23.46 (95% confidence interval 12.87 to 34.05). No significant differences were found between any of the other outcomes measured. The trials were assessed as having a low to moderate risk of bias across several domains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the available evidence no recommendations can be made about whether tyrosine supplementation should be introduced into routine clinical practice. Further randomised controlled studies are required to provide more evidence. However, given this is not an active area of research, we have no plans to update this review in the future.

Using digital technology for home monitoring, adherence and self-management in cystic fibrosis: a state-of-the-art review.

Digital healthcare is a rapidly growing healthcare sector. Its importance has been recognised at both national and international level, with the WHO recently publishing its first global strategy for digital health. The use of digital technology within cystic fibrosis (CF) has also increased. CF is a chronic, life-limiting condition, in which the treatment burden is high and treatment regimens are not static. Digital technologies present an opportunity to support the lives of people with CF. We included 59 articles and protocols in this state-of-the-art review, relating to 48 studies from 1999 until 2019. This provides a comprehensive overview of the expansion and evolution of the use of digital technology. Technology has been used with the aim of increasing accessibility to healthcare, earlier detection of pulmonary exacerbations and objective electronic adherence monitoring. It may also be used to promote adherence and self-management through education, treatment management Apps and social media.

Infection prevention and control in cystic fibrosis: One size fits all The argument against.

As awareness of the risks of cross infection has increased, infection prevention and control measures have become more draconian. Infection control measures can have a profound effect of the organisation and delivery of CF services and on the lives of people with CF outside the hospital. However, the consequences of inadequate infection control measures may be the permanent acquisition of a chronic infection which is virtually untreatable. Recommendations for infection prevention and control therefore must protect patients but should also be evidence-based and proportionate. This article will review the literature, juxtaposing evidence and popular practise.

Treatments for priapism in boys and men with sickle cell disease.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease comprises a group of genetic haemoglobin disorders. The predominant symptom associated with sickle cell disease is pain resulting from the occlusion of small blood vessels by abnormally 'sickle-shaped' red blood cells. There are other complications, including chronic organ damage and prolonged painful erection of the penis, known as priapism. Severity of sickle cell disease is variable, and treatment is usually symptomatic. Priapism affects up to half of all men with sickle cell disease, however, there is no consistency in treatment. We therefore need to know the best way of treating this complication in order to offer an effective interventional approach to all affected individuals. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and risks of different treatments for stuttering (repeated short episodes) and fulminant (lasting for six hours or more) priapism in sickle cell disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched trial registries. Date of the most recent search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 09 September 2019. Date of most recent search of trial registries and of Embase: 01 October 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing non-surgical or surgical treatment with placebo or no treatment, or with another intervention for stuttering or fulminant priapism. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials with 102 participants were identified and met the criteria for inclusion in this review. These trials compared stilboestrol to placebo, sildenafil to placebo and a four-arm trial which compared ephedrine or etilefrine to placebo and ranged in duration from two weeks to six months. All of the trials were conducted in an outpatient setting in Jamaica, Nigeria and the UK. None of the trials measured our first primary outcome, detumescence. However, all three trials reported on the reduction in frequency of stuttering priapism, our second primary outcome; and from the evidence included in this review, we are uncertain whether stilboestrol, etilefrine or ephedrine reduce the frequency of stuttering priapism as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. Additionally, we conclude that sildenafil may make little or no difference (low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported on immediate side effects and we are uncertain whether etilefrine or ephedrine reduce the occurrence of these (very low-certainty of evidence) and also conclude that sildenafil may make little or no difference in side effects (low-quality evidence). Given that all of the trials were at risk of bias and all had low participant numbers, we considered the certainty of the evidence to be low to very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of evidence for the benefits or risks of the different treatments for both stuttering and fulminant priapism in sickle cell disease. This systematic review has clearly identified the need for well-designed, adequately-powered, multicentre randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of specific interventions for priapism in sickle cell disease.

Standard versus biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing to guide antibiotic therapy in cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians typically select the antibiotics used to treat pulmonary infections in people with cystic fibrosis based on the results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing performed on bacteria traditionally grown in a planktonic mode (grown in a liquid). However, there is considerable evidence to suggest that Pseudomonas aeruginosa actually grows in a biofilm (or slime layer) in the airways of people with cystic fibrosis with chronic pulmonary infections. Therefore, choosing antibiotics based on biofilm rather than conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing could potentially improve response to treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in people with cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To compare biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing-driven therapy to conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing-driven therapy in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in people with cystic fibrosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Most recent search: 07 April 2020. We also searched two ongoing trials registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Most recent searches: 07 April 2020 and 05 September 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antibiotic therapy based on biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to antibiotic therapy based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pulmonary infection in people with cystic fibrosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected RCTs, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data from eligible trials. Additionally, the review authors contacted the trial investigators to obtain further information. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: The searches identified two multicentre, double-blind RCTs eligible for inclusion in the review with a total of 78 participants (adults and children); one RCT was undertaken in people who were clinically stable, the second was in people experiencing pulmonary exacerbations. Both RCTs prospectively assessed whether the use of biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing improved microbiological and clinical outcomes in participants with cystic fibrosis who were infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The primary outcome was the change in sputum Pseudomonas aeruginosa density from the beginning to the end of antibiotic therapy. Although the intervention was shown to be safe, the data from these two RCTs did not provide evidence that biofilm susceptibility testing was superior to conventional susceptibility testing either in terms of microbiological or lung function outcomes. One of the trials also measured risk and time to subsequent exacerbation as well as quality of life measures and did not demonstrate any difference between groups in these outcomes. Both RCTs had an overall low risk of bias and the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria was deemed to be moderate to high for the outcomes selected. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence is insufficient to recommend choosing antibiotics based on biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing rather than conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pulmonary infections in people with cystic fibrosis. Biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing may be more appropriate in the development of newer, more effective formulations of drugs which can then be tested in clinical trials.

Combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing for acute exacerbations in chronic infection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic therapy for acute pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis is usually chosen based on the results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing of individual drugs. Combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing assesses the efficacy of drug combinations including two or three antibiotics in vitro and can often demonstrate antimicrobial efficacy against bacterial isolates even when individual antibiotics have little or no effect. Therefore, choosing antibiotics based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing could potentially improve response to treatment in people with cystic fibrosis with acute exacerbations. This is an updated version of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To compare antibiotic therapy based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing to antibiotic therapy based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis and chronic infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register which comprises of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Date of latest search: 19 March 2020. We also searched ongoing trials registries. Date of latest search: 07 April 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled studies of antibiotic therapy based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to antibiotic therapy based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations in cystic fibrosis due to chronic infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality and extracted data from eligible studies. Additionally, the authors contacted the study investigators to obtain further information. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified one multicentre study eligible for inclusion in the review. This study prospectively assessed whether the use of multiple combination bactericidal antibiotic testing improved clinical outcomes in participants with acute pulmonary exacerbations of cystic fibrosis who were infected with multiresistant bacteria. A total of 132 participants were randomised in the study. The study investigators provided data specific to the 82 participants who were only infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa for their primary outcome of time until next pulmonary exacerbation. For participants specifically infected with only Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the hazard ratio of a subsequent exacerbation was 0.82, favouring the control group (95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.51) (P = 0.52). No further data for any of this review's outcomes specific to participants infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa were available. The risk of bias for the included study was deemed to be low. The quality of the evidence was moderate for the only outcome providing data solely for individuals with infection due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. For other outcomes, we were unable to judge the quality of the evidence as no data were available for the relevant subset of participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence, limited to one study, shows that there is insufficient evidence to determine effect of choosing antibiotics based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to choosing antibiotics based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis with chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. A large international and multicentre study is needed to further investigate this issue. The only study included in the review was published in 2005, and we have not identified any further relevant studies up to March 2017. We therefore do not plan to update this review until new studies are published.